Do you think taking half the cars off the road would reduce accidents? Do you think taking half the drugs off the street would reduce ODs?
Are you going to evade the questions claiming that cars and drugs aren't protected by the constitution?
Dems, quit talkin' guns when your laws/bureaucracy can't stop this latest one that SCREAMS for someone not having a gun.
- Thread starter Orangeclad
- Start date
Are you going to evade the questions claiming that cars and drugs aren't protected by the constitution?
If we had a billion criminals and zero guns, how much gun violence would we have?
Gun violence and gun accidents are two completely different things.
Zero.
How much VIOLENCE would we have?
Thank you for proving my point. It's not about the tools, it's about the criminals.
That is correct. Take away all criminals OR all guns and there is no gun violence.
Of course, we'll never do either but, hopefully, you now understand that both criminals AND guns are the components of gun violence.
I do. Both are necessary for gun violence. That's why you want to eliminate guns to eliminate gun violence.
What I also realize is that eliminating guns doesn't eliminate criminals. If you take their guns, they will simply pick another tool and commit more violence with the new tool.
Anyone thinking logically understands that.
You just want to eliminate guns. You think it will be easier to eliminate them from law-abiding citizens, so you start there.
The sad thing is, in your terror over guns, you can't see that your thinking would actually INCREASE gun violence.
The goal is to reduce VIOLENCE. Not gun violence by itself.
The point is, more guns doesn't equal more gun violence, more violent people equates to more gun violence.
Another example is Australia. After a mass shooting they did a mandatory buyback in the mid 90's.
Today, there are more guns in Australia than before the buyback and mass shootings and gun deaths are down.
It's weird, I know, but it's almost like the inanimate object is not capable of causing harm on its own. You're just not going to find a data point that supports your position. Forks don't make people fat and guns don't kill people.
He lives in a make-believe fantasy land, fueled by misplaced fear.
He's scared of guns. He should be scared of criminals.
It's hard to reason with such misguided logic.
Criminals + guns = gun violence. Do you agree?
The left wants to shield criminals from blame. Do you agree?
The right wants to shield guns from blame. Do your agree?
I just want to play fantasy land with you, and you're getting all snippy.
Should we ban Taco Bell and McDonald's because obesity and heart disease are the leading causes of death in the US?
I mean, if your platform is really about saving lives, why aren't you more concerned with heart disease killing 700k people a year when guns are less than 50k (and only 43% if that number are homicides)?
And cancer kills 600k, over 10X what guns do....where's your cancer soapbox?
It's almost like saving lives isn't the point for you...
Correct. His terror over guns is blinding him to reality.
Sadly, in his mind if guns were eliminated and all criminals started killing the same amount of people with knives, he would see that as 'progress'.
Because in his mind, eliminating the inanimate object that he is terrified of, is the goal. I do pity anyone that's this gripped with fear that their mental capacity is that diminished.
Using your logic:
Heart disease kills 700k a year and cancer only kills 600k. Why are we spending time on cancer when heart disease kills more people?
Do you think our interstate highways and our ability to freely travel cause problems?
I guess the violence would come from those trying to confiscate guns AND the law abiding. So you think the anti American leftists want to curtail gun rights because of peace and love? You are a fool. They have the third world pouring in and the prison doors wide open and you think they are about peace and love. What a joke.
A better analogy would be does our abundance of cars cause any problems?
Car nuts would say 'no'. Heavy traffic and accidents aren't a problem at all. Cars are inanimate. 😂
We're working on both, but you're changing the argument because it destroys your premise.
- The goal here is saving lives
- We have widely available products (processed fast food and high fructose corn syrup, for example) that are proven to lead to death and bad health outcomes...costing money, lives and poor life quality for millions
- You're totally ignoring the much more fatal problems facing society because you have an irrational fear of inanimate objects...
The bottom line is you don't really care about life or death, or impacting society in a positive way...you just care about getting rid of inanimate objects that you're afraid of.
And you mine.I understand why you don't want to answer the question.
Why can't we both play make believe and ask impossible hypotheticals?
You are soooooo inconsistent!
One minute you're OK with working on multiple issues. The next minute you're saying we should only focus on the most deadly causes of death.
Which is it?
This is already a law. So is illegally crossing the border. What happens when we disregard our laws?
It always AMAZES me how libs like yourself find people who follow our Constitution as "extremists". But libs have NEVER been accused of being very bright.
Theo...either one of two things here. You are THE dumbest person on the planet..or you are just trolling. I think the latter. PLEASE tell me you are just trolling here? Because ANYONE with even a partially functioning brain would KNOW that
1. Cars and guns are inanimate objects, and in almost EVERY case in history..never hurt ANYONE without human intervention
2. unlike cars....most guns are kept in safes and rarely get used, even pulled out of the safes, whereas "cars" by a HUGE majority...get used EVERY day.
3. Is it even possible to take half the cars off the road..or half the guns away from law abiding people?
4. DUMBEST analogy I have seen in my life
I agree with this. Place ANY gun in a room and never let a human touch it...and it will NEVER, EVER harm anyone, PROVING BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT...guns are NOT the problem. (unless you are stupid, and think the gun can by itself pick a target and injure someone)
When did I ever say we shouldn’t try to reduce gun deaths via both homicide and suicide?
We 100% should do what we can to stop criminals from committing gun crimes while allowing the law abiding to protect themselves from said criminals.
We disagree on the root cause and how to handle it…and one of us has a strong detachment from reality.
You said:
"I mean, if your platform is really about saving lives, why aren't you more concerned with heart disease killing 700k people a year when guns are less than 50k (and only 43% if that number are homicides)?
And cancer kills 600k, over 10X what guns do....where's your cancer soapbox?"
Sounded to me like you wanted less focus on gun violence because diseases kill more.
I feel like I'm 'debating' someone in a cult.
Me: Don't you girls feel like Charlie is manipulating you for evil purposes?
Manson girls: No. Charlie is wonderful and he loves us very much.
Of course. I don't worship guns so I must be a leftwing extremist.You sound just like Joy Behar
He never said that. And you know he never said that.
What he did was point out that you don't care about the cause of death UNLESS it comes from a gun.
And you're trying to deflect from him exposing your warped priorities. Stop being scared of an inanimate object.
Libs are fine with disregarding laws, especially when they benefit from doing so. They only favor the enforcement of laws when it hurts their perceived opponents.
As we see ITT.
Charlie is a person. For this analogy to work, you would need to be trying to argue that Charlie's inanimate object was trying to manipulate the girls for evil purposes.
The inanimate object is an inanimate object. Your terror of said inanimate object blinds you of that reality.
